In article <362e6a0e.1315316062 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 14 Oct 1998 17:30:57 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>On 14 Oct 98 07:59:45 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
>>HOLZMAN) wrote:
>>>>>In article <3623dacc.623177053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>> On 13 Oct 1998 17:12:03 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>> Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <ShzPMvTWl66V at mcrcr6>,
>>>>>ROBERT S. HOLZMAN <holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <6vteq4$9jk at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) writes:
>>>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No. It was just dead cold wrong.
>>>>>>>>Well, have I moved off of the idiotic list, Mr Carter? I've been
>>>>>>>>upgraded to simply dead wrong? I gave you "A" study, I can give you
>>>>>>>>lots more with higher doses. Want to keep looking foolish?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're still an idiot, not to worry. And wrong, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to other studies using higher doses, yes, there are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But let's get to the point.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no I didn't. I said higher doses were used than today. Don't mislead
>>>>>>>>our audience. Remember, they can read too.
>>>>>>>> that people were taking 1200 mg or some high dose until the
>>>>>>>>protease inhibitors came along, then the dose dropped.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dosage changed in 1989, quite a bit before PIs came along.
>>Similar results were found in a US study comparing zidovudine with
>placebo in primary HIV infection (n=28).[46] At 48 weeks, patients
>who had taken 1000 mg of zidovudine per day for 24 weeks had
>higher CD4+ cell counts (median, 0.70x 109/L) than the placebo group
>(median, 0.36x109/L) (P=.02). 46. Holodniy M, Niu M, Bethel J, et
>al. A pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of zidovudine (ZDV) vs
> placebo in primary HIV infection (DATRI 002). Presented at XI
>International Conference on AIDS; July 8, 1996; Vancouver, British
>Columbia.
>Oh, do I still have to keep digging up data, that you will refute
>again that proves, once more, that I was correct when I stated that
>higher dosages of monotherapy AZT had been used, RECENTLY? Is this
>one recent enough? It certainly appears to have passed your timeline
>of 1989. jb
Ahem. Excuse me, Mr. Genius sir? This abstract refers to a study
looking at HIV for PRIMARY infection. This usage is not indicated,
and has never been clinically validated. While they use 1000mg
in this study, it's in a context that virtually never happens in
the community. Surely you can do better than this?
Carlton